On the defensive about the value of its pricey cholesterol medicine, Amgen (AMGN) released a new study that argues its treatment is cost effective at about $9,700 a year, which is closely in line with the existing price tag — after discounts and rebates are subtracted from the $14,000 list price.

This contrasts, however, with the $4,200 price point that a group of academics suggested in their own analysis, which was released earlier this week. In their view, the drug — an injectable medicine known as Repatha — should be marked down by roughly two-thirds off the list price to be seen as a good value. Their analysis was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus. To get you started, enjoy 50% off your first 3 months!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • (Note: I do not have access to the full article; this point may have been addressed. Regardless, the opening to this piece is misleading.)

    The first paragraphs of this article indicate a wider discrepancy between price points for “good value” between the two analyses than the models actually found. The Amgen article uses a $150,000 benchmark for cost-effectiveness, while the Kazi article refers to a $100,000 QALY gained threshhold. At a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 to mirror the Amgen results, Kazi’s model returns a ~$6K price point in the indication of HF and ~$7K for atherosclerotic disease. Granted, these are lower than the $9,699 price point found in the Amgen model, but they are a good deal higher than the $4,500 price you cite when you compare the price for value as defined by disparate threshholds.

    • Hi Kate,

      Thanks for the note. While I did not delve into the differing QALY specifics, I did include this line further down the piece:

      “Both of the latest analyses used slightly different benchmarks for determining cost effectiveness.”

      I understand your point, however, that the differing benchmarks can lead to different price ranges and should have noted that more explicitly.

      While I’m here – what do you think of the differing assessments?

      Regards,
      ed at pharmalot

Your daily dose of news in health and medicine

Privacy Policy